No Need To Vote Early And Often When The E-Voting Machine Counts Your Vote In Triplicate

from the automating-vote-fraud dept

Remember how the press (and e-voting companies) were telling us there were no major glitches in their equipment this past election? That, of course, was until votes turned up missing in Florida and Arkansas. However, don't fret. We may have found the missing votes. You see, down in Texas, just outside of Austin, the voting machines there were found to have counted each vote three times. This was discovered only after election officials wondered why there were more votes than visitors. In typical e-voting company fashion, the makers of these machines, Election Systems & Software, once again refuses to concede that their machines are the problem, blaming human error in the operators of the machine. Yes, that's right, when their machine counts votes in triplicate, it's not the fault of the machine that should be designed in a way to never let that happen, it's the fault of the users, all of whom had their votes count multiple times. Apparently it never occurred to Election Systems & Software that part of their job in designing the voting machine is to make it impossible for "human error" (or anything else, for that matter) to allow votes to be counted multiple times.

I have to agree

One of the basic design requirements should be that a person can only submit one vote... Otherwise what's the sense in have the whole voting process!?! duuhh
That's like someone inventing a lock that reads your finger print.
you install the lock
someone walks in the door by simply pushing the door open.
And the company says:
It was human error because they didn't use the fingerprint reader...
It's so stupid!

What's the problem?

Re: What's the problem?

Mainly it would be that the results have already been tallied using the wrong numbers and every person in the precinct with the bad machines had a triple weight compared to everyone else in Texas. Seems like a bit of a problem to me.

Re: Just how do you make human error impossible?

S'posed ta work that way

See, it has to do with cross checking. Ya take 3 buckets. Put the total number of votes into each of the buckets. Divide the total number of votes in the first bucket by 3. That's the actual number of votes. Divide the number of votes in the second and third buckets each by 3. If bucket 1 equals bucket 2 then the votes are verified. Bucket 3 is in case buckets 1 and 2 don't match.
On a more serious side, don't these flippin' votin' machine folks know how to F*ING TEST??!!

Re: S'posed ta work that way

Human Error

The last 762397596986235 times I've gone to vote it's often been at a local church or school. Somewhere close. I go wait in line and when I get to the machines, I see the officials that are there 'running' the operation. They tend to be a variety mix of seniors and middle-aged citizens of the area, maybe teachers, who knows. The point is, just looking at them I can tell that they'd get lost in a heart-beat so much as turning on a Macintosh. So why the hell are they the ones in 'charge' of watching these vote machines? Please tell me they're not the ones setting them up at least!

But hell, even if they were setup by the company that made them, then left in the hands of the incapable tech'tards, what exactly happens when something goes wrong and it's not on the short check-list left by the manufacturer? Apparently you get your vote counted 3 times.

Overkill

Can someone tell me again why we are using a multi-threaded OS with multiple hardware abstraction layers, several layers of network protocol, and enough storage space per machine to hold the votes for the entire planet just to do a vote++ operation? Check out India's electronic voting system. It is a small simple hand held device that can handle multiple languages and a verifiable paper trail and is extremely secure. Why is it that the U.S. is so pathetically failing on this topic?

Re: Overkill

Can someone tell me again why we are using a multi-threaded OS with multiple hardware abstraction layers, several layers of network protocol, and enough storage space per machine to hold the votes for the entire planet just to do a vote++ operation?

Department of Redudancy Department

With all the people out of Jobs and the amount spent on Voting machines, why not ban the machines and do it the way it was done prior to the revolution (pick your revolution)
We could have real accountability and save money in the end. Watchers of the counters would be held accountable by serious fines that WOULD be upheld!
Standardize the ballots, recycle the ballots and after the required waiting time for any challenges... et al
Seeing as how our Social Security number has been trampled anyway, why not use that as part of the voter registration process? Naw that makes way to much sense...

Re: Department of Redudancy Department

Yin n' Yang

So what you're saying is that the votes I cast in FL 4 and 2 years ago didn't count at all (dangling chads) but the votes I cast in Lago Vista last week counted 3 times? I think I hear Roseann Rosanna Dana laughing somewhere.

That magnetic strip on the back of your drivers license that’s never used for anything, why don’t they just use that with the pin# being the last 4 of your SS# and install the voting menu software into Bank ATM machines, hell they could even charge you the $2.00 ATM fee when you voted Ha, ha The $2.00 fee could go to the candidate you vote for and they could use it in their campaign at next election to fund all the lies they throw around.